About your Search

20130419
20130419
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about. >> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> than
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
. i borrowed into this program as a way to write about the overall challenges of the defense budget. its program is singular in cost overruns, its delays, and the way it is structured. effective defense of attribute may not be its radars and missiles and technology and ability to fight at super sized cities. it may be the way it has been designed to ease a budget cutters. more on sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q & a." >> in their documentary, "what's the catch?," rebecca levy and shelby stevens talk about seafood. iny are second prize winn this year's c-span studentcam competition. >> throughout the past few decades, the amount of damage to our water has increased exponentially. come to the salt water and oceans. it has become even more prominent than ever before. the fish that were healthy are not going extinct. each year, the u.s. consumes close to 5 billion tons of seafood. it is the third rank country for consuming fish. thecase of gone by since overuse of our country's natural resources. how can we sustain heating as many fish as we do without sustaining natural fish populati
the border, that is the last line of defense, keeping the threat out of this country. proponent of big border security for a long time. to unveilting ready technology. i was disappointed to see that your budget decreases funding for border technology. question, ir that will ask an additional one. >> it is the force multiplier. track to implement our technology procurement. as you know, what i did last year was stop the investment in having one integrated power plant across the entire border because it was expensive and was not working. more off-the- shelf technology that fits a particular terrain. if we are going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we not be able to that. the increase of the budget on i went to afghanistan and we talked about the technologies we much in agreement. excess surplus, they're willing to share with their department. >> the budget includes $43 million which is some dod. some of those air stats are not in the best shape. not a perfect solution, but the point is an important one. to the extent we have already invested in r&d, we can transfer over the bord
't help but question whether spending millions more in defense from united states to mexico is really the best use of dollars, but i do know that each one of us can write what we want, and each one of us may have a different bill. you have a bill that's a product of compromise, very difficult concessions by all involvedand i mentioned senator schumer and senator schumer, durbin, graham, and plate, but also, senator feinstein and senator senator menendez, senator rubio, senator bennett, all worked on this. so now we're bringing to the public this immigration hearing. it's the fourth we've had this year. we will hold hearings on monday. we will find time for secretary napolitano to come before the committee and discuss that with senator grassley. and so i hope these will give the public an opportunity to learn about it. certainly, every one of us loves to want to say we -- every one of us will have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we actually start marking it up in may. but just remember, immigration is an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and also, our
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7